GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 GiESCO 2019 9 Survey reveals training needs for airblast sprayer operators

Survey reveals training needs for airblast sprayer operators

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study – In California, little training in sprayer calibration or pesticide drift management is required to apply pesticides. Yet, there is a need to maximize pesticide efficacy and minimize drift. Therefore, our team is developing a training course on airblast application best practices. We distributed a survey to identify current practices and used importance-performance analysis to interpret responses to the importance of spray related topics and satisfaction with previous training.

Material and methods – In 2018 we solicited survey replies, receiving 219 responses from winegrape and orchard industry members. Respondents rated 18 spray topics using a Likert-type scale. Topic categories included sprayer calibration, weather, techniques to reduce drift, and applicator attitude. Respondents rated 1) how important each topic is to them and 2) how satisfied they are with the quality of training they had previously received; or “no training received”. Results were calculated by topic as the mean importance (y) and satisfaction with training (x), and graphed using (x,y) as coordinates. The overall importance and performance means were used to define graph quadrants; the resulting topic placement in the quadrants prioritized training needs. We also asked: “Do you change your sprayer set up?”, “What steps do you take to calibrate?” and “Have you experienced a pest control failure that could have been related to a poor spray application?”

Results – Checking spray coverage ranked the most important topic while improving safety ranked highest for satisfaction. Topics fell into quadrants: 1.-high priority: checking coverage, selecting nozzles, reducing costs, and measuring flow; 2.-less emphasis: measuring application rate, measuring speed, improving safety, checking wind speed, reducing drift, and checking pressure; 3.-low interest: reducing spray loss to the ground, adjusting air flow, determining droplet size, checking temperature, determining if an inversion exists, using the low-drift technique “Gear up, Throttle down”, and checking relative humidity; 4.-low priority: checking wind direction. Responses to “What steps do you take to calibrate?” included measuring speed (44.9%), spraying out the tank to a known area (35.6%) and checking nozzles (34.7%). Only 8.1% of respondents check coverage and 5.9% admitted not calibrating or not often. 38% do not change their sprayer set-up once the season begins. Over half experienced a pest control failure they suspect was due to poor application; grape powdery mildew had the highest perceived failure. Respondents understand drift is undesirable but assign less importance to practices to reduce drift incidence, possibly due to lack of training received by 6-23%. Our course will focus on high priority topics; and checking weather and equipment to minimize drift.

DOI:

Publication date: June 18, 2020

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Poster

Authors

Lynn WUNDERLICH1, Franz NIEDERHOLZER2, Lisa BLECKER3, Rhonda J. SMITH4, Stephanie BOLTON5

1 UCCE, 311 Fair Lane, Placerville, California, 95667 USA
2 UCCE, P.O. Box 180, 100 Sunrise Blvd., Colusa, California, 95932 USA
3 UCIPM, 2801 Second St., Davis, California, 95618 USA
4 UCCE, 133 Aviation Blvd. Santa Rosa, California, 95403 USA
5 Lodi Winegrape Commission, 2545 Turner Rd., Lodi, California, 95242 USA

Contact the author

Keywords

Airblast sprayer, calibration, training, survey 

Tags

GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

How much does the soil, climate and viticultural practices contribute to the variability of the terroir expression?

When considering the application of a systemic approach to assess the intrinsic complexity of agricultural production, the following question immediately arises

Evaluation of the effect of regulated deficit irrigation on Vitis vinifera Cabernet-Sauvignon physiological traits and final fruit composition

Climate change establishes challenges, as well as opportunities for many sectors, and markedly the wine sector.

Service crop effects on grapevine water and nitrogen status and yield under Mediterranean climate

Service crops in vineyard can provide multiple ecosystem services but they can also lead to competition with the grapevine for soil resources in the Mediterranean region due to potential severe droughts (Garcia et al., 2018). One of the levers of action to manage this competition is the choice of species adapted in terms of growth dynamics and water and nutrients’ needs. The objectives of this study were to determine the effect of temporary service crops on grapevine water and nitrogen status and grapevine yield and yield components in a Mediterranean vineyard.

From plant water status to wine flavonoid composition: a precision viticulture approach in a Sonoma county vineyard

Plant water status of grapevine plays a critical role in affecting berry and final wine chemical composition. The environmental variabilities existing in vineyard system have significant impacts on plant water status, but it is challenging to individualize environmental factors from the temporal and spatial variabilities in vineyard. Therefore, there is need to monitor the ecophysical variation through utilizing precision viticulture tools in order to minimize the separation in berry composition. This study aims at delineating vineyard into different management zones based on plant water status explained by soil texture, and utilize differential harvest to equilibrate the final berry and wine composition.

Under trellis cover crop induces grapevine tolerance to bunch rot

Botrytis bunch rot occurrence is one of the most important limitations for the wine industry in humid environments. A positive correlation between grapevine growth and susceptibility to fungal pathogens has been found. In theory the effect of grapevine vegetative growth on bunch rot expression results from direct effects (cluster architecture, nitrogen status among others) and indirect ones (via microclimate). However, a reduction in bunch rot incidence can be achieved in some circumstances without major vine growth reduction. The present study was aimed to test the general hypothesis that bunch rot susceptibility is affected by vine vigor, but other factors associated with grapevine vegetative expression could be even more relevant.